There is little doubt that piracy of subscription or member-only access content is damaging to publishers and societies. Does the same hold true for open access journals? Angela Cochran explores some of the dangers piracy poses to open access content.
In this article Robert Harington suggests that some society journal publishers may wish to consider moving their journal program to a Diamond open access (OA) model. Nice idea right, but easier said than done.
Open access (OA) publishing seeks to eliminate paywalls for users. It has largely succeeded, but new diversions and distractions built into the commercial Internet may create new barriers that will be harder to deal with.
Is our objective for open access and scholarly communication to maximize public access to research outputs or to bend the cost curve for licensed e-resources? Definitions of success matter.
Many of the finest scholarly publications can boast of exemplary editorial programs, but the advent of Gold Open Access, especially when mandated by funding agencies, may make this kind of editorial activity a thing of the past.
An overview of recent events and the current state of preprints in the scholarly communications landscape.
It may seem as if it would be difficult to defend or justify a blatant piracy operation like Sci-Hub. But it can be done, if you’re willing to overlook certain facts and advance certain tenuous moral arguments.
The open access megajournal is a proven success, but its future may lie in the hands of commercial entities.
In every publishing organization you need a rebel. Robert Harington talks with Peter Krautzberger, project lead for MathJax and rebel, about his views on Web publishing, ebooks and mathematics.
Robert Harington takes the reader on a tour of copyright law, suggesting that its value is in supporting our ability to teach and do research, and publish high quality works.
What, if anything, should be done about the fact that the Open Access movement embraces not only a variety of definitions of the term “open access,” but also a diversity of visions as to what constitutes an acceptable future for access to scholarship?
Fifteen years after the term was coined, we still don’t have a single agreed-upon definition of Open Access (OA). What are the implications of this diversity of views within the OA movement, and how much does it really matter?
As we’ve absorbed and adopted the information economy assumptions peddled by Silicon Valley, social isolation has increased, the definition of “fact” has become slippery, and the scientific record has become more superficial, less reliable, and more transitory. In fact, confirmation bias seems to have become our main operating principle. Maybe a change in economic incentives and greater skepticism across the board could help — all driven by more humans at the controls.
The just-launched beta version of Humanities Commons is the latest in a growing number of scholar-led innovations in scholarly communication. How do such innovations develop, and how should more traditional publishers think about these opportunities? I spoke with MLA’s Kathleen Fitzpatrick recently to learn more.
We are often called upon to discuss open access to society publishers. This is what we tell them.